ORDER : Gadi Praveen Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri G.V.R.Chowdary, learned counsel representing Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent No.1, Sri P.Shashi Kiran, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, Sri V.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5 to 10 (Online), and Sri Satyasiri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.11 & 12. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the action of the 2 nd respondent in passing an award dated 08.09.2023 allowing the petitions filed by the respondent Nos.5 to 10 and closing CC.No.492 of 2023 on the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, as illegal, unauthorized and to set aside the same and a consequential direction for the respondent Nos.3 & 4 to conduct the prosecution in CC.No.492 of 2023. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent No.11 were the partners in M/s.Matrix Homes and Infratech Ventures LLP (for short ‘the LLP’). The LLP has initially entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 25.05.2019 with one M/s.White Lotus Structures Private Limited (for short the ‘Company’). Subsequently on 25.07.2019, the LLP has entered into a Development Agreement-cum- General Power of Attorney (ADGPA) with the Company (respondent Nos.5, 6, 8 to 10) agreeing for development of land to an extent of 9680 square yards situated in Sy.No.68 part, Madhapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (subject land). 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner averred that during the course of business transactions, the LLP discovered that the land entrusted to the company for development was in fact Government-owned and not the company's property. As a result, significant amounts invested by the petitioner and his mother were misappropriated. The petitioner further alleged that the company and its Directors engaged in fraudulent and dishonest conduct with the intention of unlawfully benefiting themselves while causing financial harm to the LLP, the petitioner and his mother. Consequently, on 01.02.2022, FIR No.106 of 2022 was registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the respondent Nos.5 to 10 in CC.No.492 of 2023. 5. Consequently, on 01.02.2022, FIR No.106 of 2022 was registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the respondent Nos.5 to 10 in CC.No.492 of 2023. 5. The learned counsel further averred that the petitioner was made to resign the LLP on 12.03.2023 and left for USA on 27.08.2023. Taking advantage of the petitioner’s absence from Hyderabad, the respondent No.12 who is the wife of the respondent No.11 has become one of the partners in the LLP. The respondent Nos.11 and 12 have colluded with the respondent Nos.5 to 10 and facilitated the reference of the case to Lok Adalat, resulting in the compounding of CC.No.492 of 2023 on 08.09.2023 and thereafter the trial Court passed a docket order which records that “defacto complainant/authorized representative was present” and disposed of the case. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the LLP had no authority to compound the crime because the complaint was lodged personally by the petitioner not by LLP. Whereas no notice was issued to the petitioner though the petitioner is the defacto complainant and the petitioner did not sign or consent to any compromise. Therefore, the Lok Adalat cannot grant permission for compounding non-compoundable offences. 7. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on his return to India, the petitioner filed FIR No.909/2023 against the respondent Nos.5 to 12 for cheating, forgery, impersonation and fraud in obtaining the Lok Adalat award. 8. The learned counsel further contends that the impugned Lok Adalat award is vitiated by multiple statutory violations under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (for short ‘the Act’). He submits that Section 19(5) of the Act explicitly restricts the Lok Adalat’s jurisdiction to matters where all concerned parties are present, a condition entirely ignored in this case. Similarly, the mandate under Section 20(3) of the Act which requires the presence and participation of all parties for any lawful compromise which was violated, as the petitioner, who is the complainant and victim was never issued notice or given an opportunity to be heard. Proceeding in his absence without verifying his presence or consent, amounts to a fundamental procedural illegality. Proceeding in his absence without verifying his presence or consent, amounts to a fundamental procedural illegality. Further, the Lok Adalat acted contrary to the obligation under Section 20(4) of the Act to uphold justice, equity, and fair play by relying on forged and false documents, accepting misrepresentations and failing to exercise even basic due diligence. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proceedings are null and void due to violations of mandatory procedural safeguards under the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1996, and the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalat) Regulations, 2009 (NALSA Regulations). Regulation 31 requires the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority to issue advance notice to every litigant whose case is referred to the Lok Adalat. However, the petitioner received no notice whatsoever and was denied an opportunity to put forth the contentions. Moreover, Regulation 17 of the NALSA Regulations imposes a duty on the Lok Adalat to verify the identity of parties, prevent fraud and ensure that no party misleads the forum. Instead, the Lok Adalat failed to confirm the petitioner’s presence or consent and accepted forged resolutions and false representations without scrutiny. As the award was passed without the participation of all necessary parties and without their signatures, the learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that it is void ab initio and unsustainable in law. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 10 submits that the Writ Petition is wholly misconceived and not maintainable, as the dispute between the parties was already referred to the Lok Adalat by the learned Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. The respondent Nos.5 to 10 assert that they along with Respondent 11 appeared before the Lok Adalat, which passed an award on 08.09.2023 after duly recording the presence of the authorised representative of the de facto complainant. Pursuant thereto, the Magistrate compounded the offence under Section 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and acquitted the respondent Nos.5 to 10. It is therefore urged that the Lok Adalat award cannot now be questioned in the writ proceedings. 11. Pursuant thereto, the Magistrate compounded the offence under Section 320(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and acquitted the respondent Nos.5 to 10. It is therefore urged that the Lok Adalat award cannot now be questioned in the writ proceedings. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 10 further submits that they have already discharged their entire monetary liability by paying a sum of Rs.4,50,50,000/-, out of which Rs.2,00,50,000/- was paid before the Lok Adalat on 08.09.2023 and the remaining amount of Rs.2.5 crores was paid in five instalments between 22.09.2023 and 13.11.2023. In view of such full and final settlement, the respondents contend that the petitioner’s challenge to the award dated 08.09.2023 is purely vexatious. They maintain that they had neither committed fraud nor acted with any dishonest intention to gain wrongful advantage and that the transaction between the parties was a bona fide commercial arrangement. 12. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner himself resigned from the LLP on 12.03.2023 and after severing all ties with the entity, the petitioner has no locus to question the compromise effected between the respondent Nos.5 to 10 and the LLP represented by the respondent Nos.11 and 12. According to them, the allegation of fraud pertains exclusively to the respondent Nos.11 and 12 and has no bearing on the respondent Nos.5 to 10, who have already paid substantial amounts under the compromise. They assert that if the petitioner has any grievance about his investment or dealings with the respondent Nos.11 and 12, it is a matter solely between them and cannot be converted into a challenge against the Lok Adalat award. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the subsequent complaints lodged by the petitioner particularly FIR No.909 of 2023 dated 12.09.2023 and the later complaint dated 04.11.2023, do not disclose any cognizable offence against the respondent Nos.5 to 10. They assert that the petitioner’s allegations in the writ affidavit are contradictory, and even in his later complaints, the petitioner does not attribute any role to the respondent Nos.5 to 10. Nevertheless, their names were included as accused in FIR No.909/2023 without any basis, which the respondents describe as a “mystery”. They therefore contend that the petitioner is abusing the criminal process solely to exert pressure on the respondent Nos.11 and 12. 14. Nevertheless, their names were included as accused in FIR No.909/2023 without any basis, which the respondents describe as a “mystery”. They therefore contend that the petitioner is abusing the criminal process solely to exert pressure on the respondent Nos.11 and 12. 14. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is attempting to “ride two horses” by simultaneously challenging the Lok Adalat award in writ proceedings while also pursuing criminal complaints against the respondent Nos.11 and 12, without any clarity or consistency in his pleadings. It is further contended that attributing fraud to a Lok Adalat award amounts to imputing malice to a statutory forum akin to a civil Court and such a challenge is impermissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the respondent Nos.5 to 10, the Writ Petition is nothing but a frivolous and vexatious attempt to blackmail the respondents, an abuse of the process of court and deserves to be dismissed. 15. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.11 and 12 contended that the present Writ Petition is wholly misconceived as the impugned Lok Adalat award dated 08.09.2023 was passed strictly in accordance with law. Further the criminal case in CC.No.492 of 2023 arose out of a complaint filed not in the petitioner’s personal capacity but by the LLP, a distinct legal entity, of which the petitioner was only the designated partner at that time. Since the LLP was the actual complainant and aggrieved party, the petitioner cannot now claim personal rights over proceedings legally compromised by the LLP itself. 16. The learned counsel further contends that the petitioner had, by a supplementary agreement dated 25.07.2019, resigned from the LLP, and his exit was formally given effect from 03.12.2022. Upon the resignation of the petitioner, the respondent No.12 was inducted as partner and the LLP thereafter continued to be represented exclusively by the respondent Nos.11 and 12. Hence when the Company approached the LLP for settlement, the LLP acting through its lawful partners decided to compound the offences. The compounding petitions were filed by the LLP and the learned Trial Court allowed the same on 08.09.2023. This compounding order passed under Sections 320(2) and 320(8) of Cr.P.C. has not been challenged by the petitioner and therefore the Lok Adalat award, which merely records the compromise, cannot be sought to be set aside indirectly through a Writ Petition. 17. The compounding petitions were filed by the LLP and the learned Trial Court allowed the same on 08.09.2023. This compounding order passed under Sections 320(2) and 320(8) of Cr.P.C. has not been challenged by the petitioner and therefore the Lok Adalat award, which merely records the compromise, cannot be sought to be set aside indirectly through a Writ Petition. 17. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.11 to 12 pleads that the petitioner’s argument that the settlement should not have been accepted without notice to him is untenable. Since the LLP alone was the complainant, only the LLP’s consent was legally required. Any claim by the petitioner that the investment belonged to him personally is a civil dispute between the petitioner and the LLP or its partners and cannot confer locus standi upon the petitioner to revive a criminal case that has already been lawfully compounded. The petitioner must pursue any monetary claims through appropriate civil proceedings rather than exploit criminal prosecution to exert pressure on the respondents. 18. It is further submitted that the allegations of forgery and fraud are baseless and an afterthought as the compromise was voluntarily entered into by the LLP through its recognized partners, the respondent Nos.11 and 12 and the Lok Adalat merely recorded the compromise placed before it. The petitioner, who is no longer associated with the LLP, cannot question the LLP’s authority to settle its disputes nor can he challenge the validity of documents executed by individuals who were at the time its lawful representatives. The respondents reiterate that the petitioner lacks locus and that no procedural illegality has occurred. 19. In light of the above, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.11 to 12 contends that the prayer for setting aside the Lok Adalat award is unsustainable in law. The Writ Petition is an attempt to reopen a criminal case that has already been validly compounded and closed, while the petitioner’s alleged personal financial grievances lie exclusively within the domain of civil law. Consequently, the respondents pray that Writ Petition be dismissed in limine as devoid of merit. 20. We have given our earnest consideration and perused the record. 21. Consequently, the respondents pray that Writ Petition be dismissed in limine as devoid of merit. 20. We have given our earnest consideration and perused the record. 21. Upon consideration of the submissions and the material available on record, we find that the name of the petitioner is reflected in the FIR No.106 of 2022 and in the charge sheet in CC.No.492 of 2023, as the de facto complainant which has personally set the criminal law into motion alleging offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC. The petitioner’s status as a designated partner of the LLP at the relevant time does not alter the fact that the complaint was lodged in his individual capacity and not on behalf of the LLP. In the absence of any express authorization by the petitioner empowering the LLP or its partners to compound the criminal case, the compromise petition filed by the respondent No.11 on behalf of the LLP cannot be regarded as emanating from the competent person. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner’s consent was indispensable for any lawful compounding. 22. Section 20 of the Act reads as under: “20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats.—(1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19,— (i) *** (ii) *** (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any cither law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of section19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination: Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party. (3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. (3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. (4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles.” 23. The statutory scheme under Section 20 of the Act requires that all parties concerned be present before the Lok Adalat and that any settlement be voluntary and mutually agreed. The Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority Regulations, 1996, and the NALSA Regulations prescribe mandatory notice to all litigants and verification of their identity and consent prior to recording a compromise. In this regard, it is apt to extract Regulation 17 of the NALSA Regulations as under: “17. Award. – (1) Drawing up of the award is merely an administrative act by incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties under the guidance and assistance from Lok Adalat. (2) When both parties sign or affix their thumb impression and the members of the Lok Adalat countersign it, it becomes an award. …… Wherever the parties are represented by counsel, they should also be required to sign the settlement or award before the members of the Lok Adalat affix their signature. (3) …. (4) Where the parties are not accompanied or represented by counsel, the members of the Lok Adalat shall also verify the identity of parties, before recording the settlement.” (5) Member of the Lok Adalat shall ensure that the parties affix their signatures only after fully understanding the terms of settlement arrived at and recorded…” 24. The record does not indicate issuance of notice to the petitioner or his participation before the Lok Adalat, though the petitioner is the complainant in the criminal proceedings. The absence of such notice and participation materially affects the validity of the settlement, as the statutory framework proceeds on the premise that a compromise must have the consent of all necessary parties. 25. The memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner containing the statements of two police constables further indicates that the compromise did not have the petitioner’s assent. 25. The memo filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner containing the statements of two police constables further indicates that the compromise did not have the petitioner’s assent. One Court constable namely, Sri Reddy Nookaraju, has stated that a conference call was made with the complainant through WhatsApp, during which he clearly stated his unwillingness to compromise, and that this was conveyed to the learned APP, who did not sign the compromise petition. It is also stated that when this was communicated to the learned Magistrate, the file was returned to the section, but thereafter the constable learnt that the matter had been shown as compromised. Another court constable namely, Sri Sangam Mallesh Yadav, from Madhapur Police Station stated that the respondent No.11 approached him along with an advocate for purposes of identification and signing the compromise petition. Upon being questioned about the complainant, produced a letter asserting authorization from the Company, therefore the constable had identified the respondent No.11 and signed the compromise petition. He stated that, as the complainant was not present and the APP had not signed, the file was kept aside, and later he came to know that the case was compromised. 26. These statements, combined together with the absence of notice to the petitioner and the lack of any authorization from him, indicate that the compromise on the basis of which the Lok Adalat award was passed did not involve the participation of the de facto complainant. On perusal of the above statements we are satisfied that there is an element of fraud apparent on the face of the record, when the complainant’s refusal to compromise had been communicated and no valid authorization existed. 27. In view of the above circumstances, the settlement cannot be regarded as fulfilling the statutory requirements of the provisions of the Act and the NALSA Regulations. 28. In the instant case, the record unmistakably reveals a calculated act of fraud perpetrated upon the petitioner. Fraud, in all its forms, vitiates every solemn act; it nullifies any order or transaction tainted by deception, misrepresentation, or abuse of power. Whether arising from an innocent misrepresentation or a deliberate conspiracy, fraud strikes at the very foundation of justice. It is a well-settled principle that powers conferred by law must be exercised bona fidely and for the purposes for which they are granted. Whether arising from an innocent misrepresentation or a deliberate conspiracy, fraud strikes at the very foundation of justice. It is a well-settled principle that powers conferred by law must be exercised bona fidely and for the purposes for which they are granted. Any deviation, whether by taking into account extraneous considerations in good faith or as in cases of bad faith by exercising power for an improper or ulterior motive, renders the act ultra vires and void. The fraudulent compromise entered into in this case is a textbook instance of misuse of power for an alien purpose and constitutes a fraud on the Court itself. 29. Such conduct cannot be countenanced in a system that depends upon honesty, fairness, and transparency for its proper functioning. Fraud corrodes public confidence in legal institutions, distorts the administration of justice and destabilizes commercial relationships. Here, the collusive compromise engineered to defeat the legitimate claims of the petitioner and to shield the wrongdoers from accountability, stands out as a blatant attempt to undermine the course of justice. The fraud is apparent on the face of the record. The Court must therefore declare the fraudulent compromise and all actions flowing from it to be nullities, restore the matter to its proper legal footing and ensure that the petitioner’s rights are adjudicated without the shadow of deceit. 30. In the backdrop of the circumstances noted above, we are of the opinion that the impugned Lok Adalat award dated 08.09.2023 does not meet the statutory prerequisites of notice, presence, and consent of all concerned parties, particularly the de facto complainant. Therefore, the Lok Adalat award cannot be sustained. 31. Hence, Writ Petition No.31863 of 2023 is allowed. The impugned award dated 08.09.2023 is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District and the learned Trial Court is directed to decide the matter on its own merits in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. 32. All connected applications shall stand closed.